www.PSFmagazine.com | December 2016-January 2017 | 31 30 | December 2016-January 2017 | Powered Sport Flying Unfortunately, the sport pilot rules were being developed at the same time that a very heated discussion within the community was taking place between those who advocated for centerline thrust (for gyrocopters) and those who advocated for placing the empennage of the aircraft further back (gyroplanes). And of course this heated discussion took place on an internet forum which some people within the faa noticed. Between the heated discussions and the obviously high accident rate, the faa decided to wash their hands of the entire class of aircraft. The Sport Pilot Rule and Preamble Just as there was disagreement within the flying community over gyroplane stability, there was a similar disagreement within the faa over whether or not gyroplanes belonged in the sport pilot rule. Ultimately, there never really was agreement within the faa, either. Those writing the pilot rules included ratings for gyroplane sport pilots and instructors. Those writing the rules for aircraft certification excluded gyroplanes from being included in the rule. In fact, the crux of the problem are four words at the end of §21.190(a): “§21.190 Issue of a special airworthiness certificate for a light-sport category aircraft. (a) Purpose. The faa issues a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category to operate a light sport aircraft, other than a gyroplane.” The following is the critical discussion about gyroplanes found in the preamble to the sport pilot rule. FAA Comments from the Sport Pilot Rule Preamble Many of the commenters who called for the special light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificate for gyroplanes referred to the simple design and operation of flight controls. The faa acknowledges that this is a reason for permitting sport pilots to fly gyroplanes, and for that reason the faa included gyroplanes in the light sport aircraft definition. However, the faa does not agree that this operational simplicity would apply to design and performance criteria for the light sport aircraft gyroplane design. Complicating design factors for gyroplanes include the location of thrust and lift lines with respect to the center of gravity; horizontal and vertical stabilizer size and location; and effects of turbulence. Larger gyroplanes have greater inertia, which makes the aircraft less sensitive to the relative effects of these factors. The faa believes that the dynamics of a rotary wing aircraft and the light weight of existing two-seat ultralight gyroplanes require a design standard for structural integrity and aircraft stability that may add prohibitively expensive costs to gyroplanes. One commenter expressed doubt that the ultralight gyroplane industry would agree upon a design standard. The faa reviewed gyroplane accident statistics in the ntsb’s electronic database. The data show 70 fatal accidents in the years 1983 through 1994 with mechanical failures accounting for 12 of those accidents. Data show 20 fatal accidents in the years 1995 through 2001, and mechanical failures accounting for two of those accidents. This data tends to support those commenters who state that gyroplane safety is better served by increased availability of training rather than different standards for design and performance of gyroplanes. Refer to the discussion under “VI.5.A.viii. Gyroplanes” for details on how this rule proposes to assure better training for sport pilots seeking a gyroplane rating. To summarize, the faa stated in the nprm that, for sport pilots flying light sport aircraft, the continued use of exemptions A White Paper by & Gyroplane Advocacy Introduction When the Sport Pilot/Light Sport Aircraft (sp/lsa) regulations were being created over twelve years ago, the rules were designed to work not only for airplanes, but for nearly all forms of simple flight that sport aviators participated in. In fact, with very little practical experience with two forms of flight, two entirely new categories of aircraft were created with supporting classes. Powered parachutes and weight shift control trikes were brought into the lsa rules with aircraft definitions, pilot ratings, and even a path to Special Light Sport Aircraft certification. This was despite the fact that the faa had no real safety data on those forms of flight. Powered parachutes and weight shift control trikes have enjoyed all the benefits of the slsa rules, including the ability to manufacture and design factory-built aircraft which can be immediately sold and flown for recreation, rental, and (importantly!) flight instruction. However, while gyroplanes were recognized as part of the sport pilot world, the faa (with what one might consider an interesting twist of logic) decided that the class of aircraft was too dangerous to be regulated like other sport aircraft. The purpose of this document is to present the history of the lsa gyroplane issue, identify the areas that the faa identified that industry needed to meet, and then show that the data indicates that it is time to create a framework to begin producing and certifying slsa gyroplanes. Gyrocopters vs. Gyroplanes To be certain, gyros were going through a transition at the same time that sport pilot rules were being developed. Smaller gyrocopters had been designed and sold as experimental kits in the decades prior to sport pilot. Those aircraft did not have the inherent stability that is desirable in an aircraft and pilots of those machines paid the price in injuries and fatalities. The rotorcraft community was painfully aware of the issue and debated within itself about the causes and possible remedies. Initially, the sport thought that the problem was simply a lack of training. The faa granted exemptions to train in the experimental aircraft and cfi’s attempted to train students to avoid flying in ways that would get them in trouble. However, it is difficult to train people to fly an unstable aircraft. In fact, with larger aircraft, capable of carrying more than one person, it is possible that even more people were hurt since stability issues remained. The next idea that gained popularity within the rotorcraft community was the idea of placing engine thrustlines higher in order to avoid the pilot-induced oscillation. This became known as ‘centerline thrust’ and there were many strong adherents to the concept. However, issues remained, particularly when engines failed. In the meantime, our friends in Europe were taking a different approach. Approaching it as engineers, they discovered that if they increased the size of the empennage and displaced it further back behind the center of gravity, that the overall stability of the gyroplane increased dramatically. This is one of three presentations made by USUA and LAMA to executives at FAA Headquarters in Washington DC in November of 2016
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUwNDI3MA==